Sadler Clinic alleges conspiracy

Howard Roden

Published 7:00 pm, Friday, April 16, 2010

Unhappy with a change in Sadler Clinic’s compensation system, a group of “dissident” physicians embarked on a scheme designed to bring financial ruin on the medical facility, the clinic alleges in two counterclaims filed last week.

Sadler Clinic Association P.A. also claims that same group of doctors has negotiated with other hospitals or clinics about entering into competition against Sadler, as well as conspire to destroy the practices of fellow physicians.

The counterclaims filed on Sadler’s behalf are in response to lawsuits filed earlier this month by 24 former Sadler physicians. They are challenging the clinic’s non-compete agreement, which reportedly prohibits them from practicing medicine for 18 months within a 22-mile radius of the clinic’s primary facility at 508 Medical Center Blvd. in Conroe once their employment with the clinic ends.

The doctors contend their employment contracts are unenforceable under current Texas law and that they should have access to a list of their patients.

Chris Hanslik, of Houston, attorney for the 24 physicians, said the legal battle “is about the non-compete clause and whether their patients have the right to select who is their doctor.”

Sadler Clinic attorney Robert O’Boyle, of Austin, declined comment. However, Eric Herrera, a spokesman for the clinic, said Sadler Clinic is “glad” to have the chance to tell its side of the story.

The counterclaims were filed in the 9th state District Court of Judge Fred Edwards. One names 17 physicians, while the remaining seven doctors are seeking to join the lawsuit between Sadler Clinic and physician Nora C. Hart. The clinic sued Hart in August 2009 after she contested her contract with Sadler.

O’Boyle has asked Edwards to deny the seven doctors’ request for intervention, claiming it would complicate the case by an “excessive multiplication of issues.”

O’Boyle also has requested a continuance. The trial is slated to start April 26.

In each case against the 24 physicians, Sadler Clinic alleges breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy. Claiming that the dissident doctors’ actions are “accompanied by malice,” Sadler Clinic is seeking punitive damages.

Three of the doctors in the lawsuits against Sadler - John V. Peet, Joel Kerschenbaum and Christopher Robertson - were terminated March 26, followed by the resignation of 21 physicians. A number of the physicians cited philosophical differences with the clinic as the reason behind the firings and the subsequent mass exodus.

However, Sadler Clinic alleges the resignations are part of a scheme devised by the dissatisfied physician shareholders to deal the clinic “a fatal blow” from which it could not recover.

In its counterclaims, Sadler Clinic accuse the doctors of being motivated by profit and possessing “not a lick” of concern for their patients.

Sadler Clinic claims Peet, Kerschenbaum and Robertson were terminated because they were taking steps to “reduce revenues and deprive other Sadler physicians of business.”

Peet said he had yet to see Sadler Clinic’s countersuit and had no comment at this time. Robertson called Sadler’s claim of a conspiracy by the 24 physicians as “ludicrous,” and said the company held an attitude that the physicians who disagreed with Sadler’s viewpoint could “either take it or leave it.”

According to the counterclaims, the dispute arose in the summer of 2008 when a two-thirds majority of doctors at Sadler Clinic approved a compensation plan in a special shareholders vote.

“The change in the compensation plan was necessary because certain high revenue specialists were on average making much less than their peers, while the Sadler family practice/primary care physicians in many cases were making much more on average than their peers,” according to the counterclaims. “Simply put, the income of the lower producing doctors was being supplemented by the higher producing doctors to a disproportionate degree.”

A second vote “overwhelmingly” reaffirmed the plan, according to Sadler Clinic’s counterclaims.

From that moment, according to the counterclaim, the dissident doctors not only decided to leave Sadler and go into competition against the clinic, but to “cause as much financial harm” so that the remaining physicians at Sadler would be no longer be able to compete when the dissident doctors started their new practices.

To achieve their goal, a group allegedly formed and led by Peet and Kerschenbaum entered into negotiations to join Memorial Hermann Health Systems and other medical systems. Sadler’s counterclaims accuse the physicians of creating “referral networks” outside the clinic so they could directly compete with Sadler Clinic upon resignation.

As proof of its allegations, Sadler Clinic’s counterclaims include “documentation” to the extent of the conspiracy against the clinic.

“If we all resign this week, together, I personally feel that the Clinic will be dealt a blow that will eventually be fatal,” states one of several messages in the claim. “This needs to be precise and organized … professional and surgical in nature. Anyway, talk is cheap … lets (sic) resign as a group in an organized fashion and bring down the hammer.”

The counterclaim does not state whether the messages were verbal, written or part of e-mails.